Fourth AMV Intercomparison Study
This study is a continuation of the previous “2018 AMV Intercomparison study”, in which the same six institutions participated (EUMETSAT, NOAA, JMA, KMA, CPTEC/INPE, and NWCSAF) and their corresponding AMVs derived from GOES-16 ABI satellite images were evaluated, to address three main goals:
- To consider both 11.2 µm channel cloudy AMVs and 6.2 µm channel clear air AMVs in the comparison. In the previous AMV Intercomparison studies only cloudy AMVs were used.
- To compare the different AMV datasets with additional reference wind observations, beyond those already considered in the previous AMV Intercomparison studies (rawinsondes winds, NWP analysis winds, and CALIPSO satellite cloud heights). Here, commercial aircraft wind data and ADM-Aeolus satellite lidar wind profiles are considered. Rayleigh scattering Aeolus wind profiles are compared with clear air AMVs, and Mie scattering Aeolus wind profiles are compared with cloudy AMVs.
- Through the comparison of the different options by the AMV processing centers for the calculation of AMVs with GOES-16 satellite, to define the best options for the calculation of AMVs with the new generation of geostationary satellites (Himawari-8/9, GOES-R, MTG-I, etc.) with higher spatial resolution, higher temporal resolution, and more spectral channels.
As with previous Intercomparison studies, a dataset was identified (GOES-16/ABI images for 20 October 2019) from which several image triplets were defined for the AMV calculation to provide an optimal comparison to independent wind data (e.g., rawinsondes, NWP, Aeolus). The different centers use a prescribed configuration and their own configuration for the AMV production with these datasets.
Overall, the results of the study indicate that the AMV algorithms are becoming more similar when compared to results from previous Intercomparison studies, as evidenced in the better agreement of the AMVs to each other, rawinsondes, and NWP analyses. Also, the new comparisons of the AMVs to Aeolus and aircraft winds resulted in additional consistent results. However, we did note individual center differences and areas to further investigate, which will be presented for evaluation and discussion with the AMV producers.
PLENARY
